While no site has yet been selected for a TerraPower reactor, lessons from Wyoming and recent federal reforms offer clues about what might come next. As I have written before, the federal government has put extensive emphasis on converting retired coal plants into advanced nuclear reactors. These conversions, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, can save up to 35% on construction costs and retain much of the existing workforce. In Wyoming, TerraPower is currently building a reactor on a former coal site, and it would not be a surprise to see Kansas follow suit. This model could highlight a potential path forward for nuclear adoption in the historically coal-dominant Missouri.

Federal Reform and Cost Savings for Coal-to-Nuclear Transitions

The concept of coal-to-nuclear has drawn bipartisan attention in Washington, D.C., and has been codified in the recent ADVANCE Act, which directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop and implement strategies to enable more efficient licensing reviews for converting former coal plants and other former industry infrastructure into nuclear reactor sites.

A report prepared by experts at the Idaho, Oak Ridge, and Argonne National Laboratories found that these projects can achieve significant savings by repurposing existing infrastructure, such as steam-cycle components, since both nuclear and coal are thermal power plants that rely on generating steam to turn a turbine.

Missouri’s Long History with Coal and Transitioning Our Workforce

Coal has long been king in Missouri. Despite recent closures, Missouri remains the fourth most reliant state on coal, with coal supplying 57% of electricity generation in 2024. That legacy presents both a challenge and an opportunity.

Missouri has several coal plant sites that could be strong candidates for advanced nuclear conversion. A study from Oak Ridge National Laboratory identified three Missouri coal power plant sites (retired or slated for retirement between 2020 and 2040) as suitable for hosting a number of reactors.

Not only is there an opportunity to make use of our physical infrastructure, but Missouri can also use our existing workforce. The U.S. Department of Energy notes that many coal-plant and nuclear-plant jobs share identical or similar occupation codes, meaning a large portion of the existing workforce could transition with minimal retraining.

A Nuclear Advisory Council Could Help Identify Steps for Missouri

Another way to better identify potential nuclear sites is by creating a nuclear advisory council. If Missouri brought together the best and brightest minds in nuclear energy to discuss our unique opportunities, analyze trends in federal regulation, and address our state’s weaknesses, the Show-Me State could become a significant player in nuclear development.

Kansas is moving along in its process. Let’s hope the Show-Me State doesn’t let this same opportunity pass it by.

Interested in Nuclear Energy in Missouri?

Read my recent report, Connecting Nuclear Energy’s Past and Present: Guiding Missouri’s Future, here.

The post Considering Coal-to-Nuclear Transitions in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The nonprofit yes. every. kid. released a report that discusses how allowing non-residential students (those outside the district) access to individual classes and extracurriculars could effectively complement open enrollment. Whereas open enrollment focuses on full-time transfers, this complementary policy would allow students to remain in their school and enroll part-time in individual classes—maximizing flexibility. According to the report, eight states* allow students to enroll in classes outside of their current school.  In these states, students in a smaller rural district could enroll in physics, AP calculus, or even a music program in another district if their school does not have these classes or programs available. If open enrollment finally gets its long-needed day in Missouri, this policy could create additional opportunities for families across the state.

First, how could this benefit students?

Well, the answer is pretty obvious—more classes and more opportunities to help every kid in our state!

Second, why would a school with no physics program want its own students to participate?

The number one reason is that districts should care about their students. Competition can be cooperative, and districts should all be on the same team to best educate the students of Missouri. I chose physics as my example subject because there is a legitimate shortage of qualified physics teachers. These sending districts should want every student in their district to succeed, and many simply cannot provide classes in valuable subjects. Additionally, allowing your students to participate would lower their incentive to leave. If Johnny wants to study physics in college, but your district does not have it, he may be forced to leave your district by moving or enrolling in a private school.

Third, why would a receiving school share its resources?

The freeloading problem goes like this: “This policy would incentivize bad schools to not expand or offer new programs because they can simply mooch off our resources (and tax levies).” In Arizona, one of the states that employs this policy, part-time students (those which enroll in individual classes at different schools) are funded by the state at one fourth, one half, or three fourths of a full-time student—depending on how many classes they are taking. Therefore, state funding follows the student. Missouri does not have backpack funding like Arizona does (which we need), but a similar policy could be implemented to compensate receiving districts. Additionally, if you properly paired this policy with open enrollment, these classes could attract students. It would go both ways, as many students would stay in their home district and take individual courses elsewhere so they would not have to transfer away from their friends, sports teams, or other extracurriculars.

Receiving districts should care about all the students in our state trying to receive the best education they can. I can understand why one might take issue with another district benefitting from your district’s resources, but the most important thing is doing what works best for students. One may not think it is “fair,” but is it “fair” that a student cannot learn physics just because they live within arbitrary boundaries? Petty jealousies over dollars and cents should not stand in the way of opportunities for children across the state.

*Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Utah, and Wisconsin (all these states have open enrollment)

The post Sharing Classes for the Kids appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The twelve states with occupational licensing reciprocity are Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Oklahoma, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Notably, only one of Missouri’s border states and very few midwestern states have adopted this policy.

Being on the forefront of this movement gives Missouri a competitive advantage. We’ve significantly decreased the red tape that burdens workers when they relocate. Many licensed workers can move to Missouri and continue working much more easily than if they moved to Kansas or Illinois, for example. It’s the legislative equivalent of a giant arrow above Missouri telling workers to move here.

Though there is still more work to be done, occupational licensing reciprocity was a step in the right direction. It’s icing on the cake that Missouri was one of the first states to adopt this legislation, giving us a huge advantage over surrounding states.

The post Hey Licensed Professionals: It’s Time to Move to Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One example is Oregon’s Liquor Control Commission, which is taking steps to make the temporary relaxation of some of its rules permanent. Even better, Idaho’s governor is taking action to make a wide array of the state’s COVID-19 deregulation permanent, saying that “if waiving these regulations was deemed necessary to improve public health and welfare during the declared emergency, there is a rebuttable presumption that the regulations are unnecessary or counterproductive outside of the declared emergency.”

Sound familiar?

Show-Me Institute researchers have made this argument many times when speaking favorably of COVID-19 regulatory waivers and when calling for lawmakers to make the waivers permanent. The issue is critical enough that it was included in the Show-Me Institute list of the top issues that ought to be addressed in a special legislative session.

This call for deregulatory action is not a call from left field, nor is it an extraordinary ask. Other states are taking advantage of this opportunity to stay competitive and lessen the burden on businesses and workers. Missouri should too.

The post Other States Are Deregulating. Missouri Should Too appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In Tennessee, important improvements were made to the charter school law. In addition to public charter schools and an education savings account (ESA) program for students with disabilities, up to 15,000 students in two low-performing Tennessee counties will now be able to get an ESA worth up to $7,300 to customize their education.

Florida, where there are over 650 charter schools and four existing private school scholarship programs, just added a scholarship program for up to 18,000 low- and middle-income students. Florida will now have scholarship programs for students with disabilities, students who are bullied, students not reading at grade level, students in low-performing districts, and low- and middle-income students who simply want to choose something other than their assigned public school.

Unfortunately, the Missouri legislature took the opposite tack this session. Bills to make it easier for charter schools to expand to other cities in the state and an ESA bill were both filibustered. Senators who represent low-performing school districts chose to prevent their colleagues from even voting to give parents options. They repeated the tired claim that school choice is an effort to kill public education. But public education is alive and well in Tennessee and Florida – two of the states with the largest gains on national assessments.

There is a strong coalition that works to uphold the status quo in Missouri. Teacher union leadership, school boards, and superintendent’s associations keep an iron grip on the public school system, keeping it frozen in its current form. In addition, it’s very difficult for parents and other stakeholders to get any useful information about the performance of their local schools. They’re given an annual performance review (APR) score, which is difficult to interpret, and very little else. As a result, it’s virtually impossible to hold the public school system accountable and parents are unlikely to demand change.

But maintaining the status quo requires that parents in Missouri remain in the dark. If they got useful, easy to understand report cards on their schools with a rating system that made sense, like a letter grade, they might demand something different. If they found out how parents in rural Kansas, Arkansas and Idaho can choose a charter school designed to fit their community, they might want one for their town. If they realized that middle-class parents are choosing to stay and raise their families in DC, Detroit, and Newark, they might think differently about how Kansas City and St. Louis charter schools are treated and funded.

How long will Missouri continue to cross its arms and staunchly defend the status quo of thirty years ago? How long will the positive stories of innovation and reform in public education only be about other states? How long will the coalition behind the status quo be able to keep everyone in the dark?

The post Great News for Students and Parents . . . in Tennessee and Florida appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In Tennessee, important improvements were made to the charter school law. In addition to public charter schools and an education savings account (ESA) program for students with disabilities, up to 15,000 students in two low-performing Tennessee counties will now be able to get an ESA worth up to $7,300 to customize their education.

Florida, where there are over 650 charter schools and four existing private school scholarship programs, just added a scholarship program for up to 18,000 low- and middle-income students. Florida will now have scholarship programs for students with disabilities, students who are bullied, students not reading at grade level, students in low-performing districts, and low- and middle-income students who simply want to choose something other than their assigned public school.

Unfortunately, the Missouri legislature took the opposite tack this session. Bills to make it easier for charter schools to expand to other cities in the state and an ESA bill were both filibustered. Senators who represent low-performing school districts chose to prevent their colleagues from even voting to give parents options. They repeated the tired claim that school choice is an effort to kill public education. But public education is alive and well in Tennessee and Florida – two of the states with the largest gains on national assessments.

There is a strong coalition that works to uphold the status quo in Missouri. Teacher union leadership, school boards, and superintendent’s associations keep an iron grip on the public school system, keeping it frozen in its current form. In addition, it’s very difficult for parents and other stakeholders to get any useful information about the performance of their local schools. They’re given an annual performance review (APR) score, which is difficult to interpret, and very little else. As a result, it’s virtually impossible to hold the public school system accountable and parents are unlikely to demand change.

But maintaining the status quo requires that parents in Missouri remain in the dark. If they got useful, easy to understand report cards on their schools with a rating system that made sense, like a letter grade, they might demand something different. If they found out how parents in rural Kansas, Arkansas and Idaho can choose a charter school designed to fit their community, they might want one for their town. If they realized that middle-class parents are choosing to stay and raise their families in DC, Detroit, and Newark, they might think differently about how Kansas City and St. Louis charter schools are treated and funded.

How long will Missouri continue to cross its arms and staunchly defend the status quo of thirty years ago? How long will the positive stories of innovation and reform in public education only be about other states? How long will the coalition behind the status quo be able to keep everyone in the dark?

The post Great News for Students and Parents . . . in Tennessee and Florida appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Governor’s statement matches the sentiment of previous writings by my colleague, Patrick Ishmael. The costs for our state’s Medicaid program are too high and are continuing to grow. It would fiscally irresponsible to consider adding more people to the program until our policymakers can get a handle on the program’s biggest cost-drivers. Missouri is not alone in the struggle to contain growing health care costs, but that is not a reason to sit idly by as scarce state revenues continue to be diverted from other priorities. With that in mind, our policymakers should consider looking outside Missouri for potential solutions.

Several other states that have declined to expand Medicaid have submitted proposals to the federal government for initiatives that would help contain costs. Two of those proposals, Wisconsin’s and Florida’s, were recently approved and offer policy ideas that could benefit Missouri.

Wisconsin is the first non-expansion state for which a work requirement proposal was approved. Researchers at the Show-Me Institute have written about the potential benefits of work requirements in Missouri. Unfortunately, Missouri’s lawmakers considered but were unable to pass work requirement legislation in 2018. With the federal government indicating new willingness to accept such proposals, perhaps this issue could serve as a starting point for Medicaid cost containment and reform discussions in 2019.

Florida’s proposal allows the state to reduce its retroactive eligibility requirement for non-pregnant adults from 90 to 30 days. Currently, Medicaid programs cover the medical costs of beneficiaries up to three months prior to their application to the program, provided the individual was deemed to have been eligible during that period. And while the existence of that coverage may seem surprising, the reduction of that retroactive window could actually be beneficial to applicant, the idea being that a shorter period of retroactive eligibility incentivizes beneficiaries to apply as soon as possible when they get sick and believe they are eligible. Florida officials also believe the policy will encourage the maintenance of coverage, even when participants are healthy. On top of that, it is estimated the policy change could save up to $98 million annually, though it is unclear at this point how those savings estimates would translate to Missouri.

Both policies have the potential to save the state tax dollars, but neither of them should be expected to fully address the growth in Medicaid costs. Nevertheless, lawmakers shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of good. There are certainly other possible avenues for reform that could help address the “failing system,” but these already-federally-approved initiatives may be the easiest place to start.

The post Opportunities for Medicaid Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While it’s true that over half of all charter schools are in urban districts, in the 2015–16 school year there were nearly 1,800 suburban charter schools and over 1,200 in small towns and rural communities.

It turns out that curriculum really matters to middle-income parents, and many gravitate to charter schools because they offer educational models that aren’t available in traditional public schools. Some of these models are more rigorous, some are more open and creative, and some offer unique programs. There are hundreds of examples of outstanding suburban and rural charter schools, but I’ll offer just a few to ponder.

Take the BASIS charter schools: In the 2017 US News rankings of the top 10 public high schools, nine were charter schools and five of these were BASIS charter schools. BASIS currently operates 20 charter schools in Arizona, Texas, and Washington, DC. Most of them are suburban, and they serve populations that reflect their communities. Like all charter schools, BASIS schools don’t have admissions tests—students are admitted by lottery. But once they’re in, it’s not easy. In this preschool through grade 12 program, students take biology, chemistry, and physics before they start high school and all high school students are expected to pass at least 6 AP exams. The key to success in BASIS schools is having highly professional teachers who are subject matter experts. Teachers are given considerable autonomy in their classrooms, but all of them, even kindergarten math teachers, must have a college degree in the subject they teach.

Or, what about the NYOS (Not Your Ordinary School) charter school in Austin, Texas? This school was founded twenty years ago and offers smaller class sizes, year-round school and “looping” (in which a student stays with the same teachers for several years). NYOS serves 950 students in grades K through 12, but they have 3,000 more students on a waiting list for a spot.

But many small towns are taking advantage of charter schools also. Graysville, Indiana opened Rural Community Academy in 2004 when their local school was slated to close. Since then, the school has grown to 150 students and some credit it with reinvigorating the community, saving the post office, and bringing several new businesses to the area.

Rural charters aren’t always opened to save a school, though. The Upper Carmen Public Charter School in Idaho was founded in 2005 “to complement the existing public school system by providing an alternative learning environment to enable more students from Lemhi County to be successful.” This school serves no more than 90 students and emphasizes personalized learning that allows students to progress at their own pace, rather than be grouped by age. Upper Carmen Charter School has consistently ranked among the top ten percent of schools in Idaho.

Asking if there are any good charter schools outside of major cities is like asking if there are any good restaurants outside of major cities. Of course there are. Teachers, parents, and community leaders with great ideas for educating kids are everywhere. Charter schools aren’t a perfect fit for every student, but they’re a great fit for the students they serve.

The post Charter Schools 101: Why Would We Need Charters in Suburban, Rural, or “Good” Districts? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

THE SOLUTION: Repeal the Certificate of Need law.

Eliminating CON requirements would allow Missourians to benefit from true marketplace competition in the health care arena.

WHO ELSE DOES IT? California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming have no CON law.

THE OPPORTUNITY: Missouri would join a growing list of states that have opened the door to real health care competition.

KEY POINTS

• CON laws separate patients who need care from doctors who want to provide it.
• More competition would create pressure to reduce health care prices.
• Missouri would be able to compete with nearby states, including Kansas, where smaller hospitals are opening up because they aren’t restricted by CON laws.
• CON reform is an opportunity to help communities threatened by the loss of existing hospitals.
• Ending CON would empower patients to make choices that benefit their families, rather than support the government-backed competitive advantages of hospitals.

SHOW-ME INSTITUTE RESOURCES

Essay: Demand Supply: Why Licensing Reform Matters to Improving American Health Care

Blog Post: Missouri’s Certificate of Need Law Needs to Go

For a printable version of this article, click on the link below. You can also view the entire 2018 Missouri Blueprint online.

The post 2018 Blueprint: Certificate of Need appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

THE SOLUTION: Right to work.

Right to work ends forced unionism and lets workers decide whether joining a union best serves their interests. This means that being a member of a union cannot be a requirement for employment, and gives employees the final decision about whether they want to give money to a union that may or may not have their best interests at heart.

In 2017, Missouri passed Right to Work, but in 2018, the state will hold a referendum on that law.

WHO ELSE DOES IT? Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

THE OPPORTUNITY: If the state’s Right to Work law is put into full effect, Missouri will join the majority of American states that already have right to work laws, finally placing Missouri employers and employees on a level playing field with other states.

KEY POINTS

• Missouri will be better able compete with neighboring right-to-work states in attracting businesses.
• Existing unions will be more responsive to the concerns of members, thanks to the credible threat of members leaving the organization.
• Employees will have greater control over their representation in negotiations with their employer.
• Employers will have greater flexibility in managing their businesses and making their operations more successful.
• Private employers are the focus, but similar laws in the public sector, like paycheck protection, should be pursued by policymakers as well.

SHOW-ME INSTITUTE RESOURCES

Policy Study: A Primer on Government Labor Relations in Missouri

Op-Ed: Rise of the Roosevelt Law: Is Reform in Government Unions Coming to Missouri?

For a printable version of this article, click on the link below. You can also view the entire 2018 Missouri Blueprint online.

The post 2018 Blueprint: Right to Work appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The prevailing wage sets a floor for pay, but it can actually hurt the workers it’s intended to help by denying employment to people who can do the job at a more competitive price. To make matters worse, making projects more expensive also means that less taxpayer money will be available for other priorities.

THE SOLUTION: Let the market set wages.

Rather than dictate wages, the government should have policies that support a healthy jobs environment where higher wages for all sorts of construction projects—including public construction—develop on their own without the harmful effects of wage floors.

Policymakers must keep in mind that project delays can hurt their communities over time. It would be better to let the market set wage rates for these projects and to begin delivering those public services sooner rather than later.

WHO ELSE DOES IT? States with no prevailing wage law include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia.

THE OPPORTUNITY: Moving away from market-distorting policies like the prevailing wage will help the state promote job growth and spend taxpayer money efficiently.

KEY POINTS

• These reforms would promote job growth and make public works projects more affordable.
• Taxpayers get the most bang for their tax buck when their money is spent efficiently and effectively.

SHOW-ME INSTITUTE RESOURCES

Blog Post: Special Interests Inhibiting Joplin’s Recovery?

Blog Post: Playing Favorites on the Board of Aldermen?

Blog Post: The Race Is On: Wisconsin Pushes to End Project Labor Agreements and Prevailing Wage

For a printable version of this article, click on the link below. You can also view the entire 2018 Missouri Blueprint online.

The post 2018 Blueprint: Prevailing Wage appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

THE SOLUTION: Open collective bargaining.

Open collective bargaining would allow the public to attend meetings where government bodies are negotiating collective bargaining agreements with unions to ensure that tax dollars are being spent wisely. Openness in public affairs empowers citizens to hold their government representatives accountable. The public is directly affected by policies set during collective bargaining; citizens therefore have a right to be present during such meetings. An open collective bargaining rule would not prohibit the public agency from discussing and formulating its bargaining positions in executive session.

WHO ELSE DOES IT? Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, and Texas all require contract negotiations to be open.

THE OPPORTUNITY: A transparent negotiating process will enable the public to hold government accountable in its dealings with public employee unions and help ensure that the agreements reached between the two parties are in the interest of everyone instead of just a select group of employees.

KEY POINTS

• Open collective bargaining gives citizens the opportunity to attend union negotiations with government bodies and help ensure that tax dollars are spent responsibly.
• Missouri’s Sunshine Law allows government bodies to close meetings to the public if they relate to a negotiated contract, even though there is no compelling reason why negotiations between a union and a public body should be held in secret.
• Government unions can make campaign contributions and support candidates that they will potentially bargain with after election. This advantage makes it especially important that the public be aware of how the government and public employee unions interact.

SHOW-ME INSTITUTE RESOURCES

Policy Study: A Primer on Government Labor Relations in Missouri

Video: Government Unions: Restoring Accountability

For a printable version of this article, click on the link below. You can also view the entire 2018 Missouri Blueprint online.

The post 2018 Blueprint: Open Collective Bargaining appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That’s why news broken by Samantha Liss at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch should be very welcome to patients in Missouri and elsewhere, as it appears the market for at least some pharmacy services is about to grow:

Throughout the past year, and without much fanfare, Amazon.com Inc. has gained approval to become a wholesale distributor from a number of state pharmaceutical boards, according to a review of public records….

According to a review of records by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Amazon has received approval for wholesale pharmacy licenses in at least 12 states, including Nevada, Arizona, North Dakota, Louisiana, Alabama, New Jersey, Michigan, Connecticut, Idaho, New Hampshire, Oregon and Tennessee.

An application is currently pending in the state of Maine.

An Amazon spokesperson told the Post-Dispatch via email that the company does not comment on “rumors and speculation.”

It’s a little complicated, but one of the big questions surrounding the Post-Dispatch report is the ultimate aim of the Amazon filings—that is, whether Amazon wants to open up a pharmacy benefits management business only, or whether a soup to nuts model is also in the tech giant’s future. Does Amazon want to be Express Scripts? Does it want to be Walgreens? Or does it want to be both? I would welcome all of the above, actually, and I suspect millions of Amazon customers would feel likewise.

And despite the failure of our Federal representatives to actually do what they said and repeal Obamacare, there is still reason to be optimistic about the trajectory of care in this country. Along with the reform initiatives above, tech innovations like 3D printing of prosthetics, and much more, the potential entry of Amazon into the pharmaceutical space reiterates that the future of health care as some government product remains anything but assured. After all, people are markets, and markets are powerful things.

The post Is Amazon Getting into the Pharmacy Business? Let’s Hope So appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“Work-related activities” include both paid employment and things like job training and public-service work. The chart below shows participation rates among TANF recipients, and Missouri is dead last in the nation at 17%. (For clarity, the chart shows only 18 states, but the participation rates of all the omitted states fall between Missouri and Idaho.)

Idaho has the highest participation rate (87.9%). Why is Idaho’s rate over four times higher than Missouri’s? Part of the reason might be in how the two states explain the eligibility requirements to recipients. Missouri and Idaho each have websites set up for this purpose. Idaho’s website provides a clear list of acceptable work activities:

• Unsubsidized employment
• Subsidized private sector employment
• Subsidized public sector employment
• Job search and job readiness (limited to not more than 6 weeks in a federal fiscal year with not more than 4 weeks consecutive).
• Community service
• Work experience
• On-the-job training
• Vocational educational training (limited to 12 months for an individual)
• Caring for a child of a recipient in community service Supplemental Activities
• Job skills training directly related to employment
• Education directly related to employment (for those without a high school or equivalent degree)
• Completion of a secondary school program

Missouri has only an explanation of how many hours per month that an aid recipient needs to devote to work-related activity but no information about what that activity entails:

• The required average employment and training activities for a federal month for a single-parent household are:
• 20 hours if the children are under age 6
• 30 hours if the children are over age 6
• The required average employment and training activities for a federal month for a two-parent household are:
• 35 hours if the children are under age 6 and the household is not receiving federally funded childcare on the household members, and
• 55 hours for all other recipients

There is a link to the Missouri Work Assistance Program website, but even that site lacks specifics about what is expected of aid recipients.

When recipients in Missouri don’t engage in required work activities, benefits are supposed to be halved and then stopped. This rule should be enforced for people who aren’t making any effort, but our real goal is to stop paying benefits to people because they have jobs and can support themselves without government aid. Clear guidelines about required work-related activities for aid recipients might help—they seem to be working in Idaho.

The post Moving Missourians from Welfare to Work appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The chart below plots the average annual growth rate for each of the 50 states and for the United States as whole for the period 1997 through 2015. The good news is that Missouri’s average annual growth rate increased from 0.93 percent when computed over the 1997 through 2014 period to 1.02 percent when computed over the 1997 through 2015 period. Missouri reported a 1.29 percent growth rate in its real GDP between 2014 and 2015. No one really jumps for joy when growth rates are reported at 1.3 percent for a year; however, Missouri did manage to stagger its way one rung up the ladder, from 49th-fastest to 48th-fastest growing state economy over the period from 1997 through 2015.

Overall, the story for Missouri is little changed compared to a year ago. Since the late 1990s, Missouri’s economy has increased at half the rate of that of the United States as a whole. Eighteen years is not a terribly long time, and we all hope that Missouri’s future will be brighter. But the question remains: Why has the Missouri economy reported such slow growth over the past eighteen years?

The answer is not simple. Note that the ten fastest growing states are: North Dakota, Texas, South Dakota, Oregon, Utah, Colorado, California, Idaho, Arizona, and Oklahoma. There is no one clear feature shared by these ten states that can account for their economic success. Some of them do have natural resources and have benefitted from being able to dig a hole in the ground and extract things that are valuable to the rest of the world. But that is not the only explanation. For example, Arizona, Idaho, Oregon, and Utah (at least) do not fit the oil/natural gas story. Alternatively, the ten states with the lowest growth rates are Michigan, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, West Virginia, Maine, Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, and New Jersey. No single attribute these states might have in common would account for their struggles, either.

Income tax rates cannot, alone, explain the differences in growth rates. The nine states with no earned income taxes (followed by rankings) are: Alaska (40), Florida (20), Nevada (16), New Hampshire (25), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (30), Texas (2), Washington (13), and Wyoming (11). The nine states with the highest marginal income tax rates (followed by rankings) are: California (7), Hawaii (37), Oregon (4), Minnesota (17), Iowa (23), New Jersey (42), Vermont (26), New York (29), and Maine (46). The mean rank for the nine states with no income taxes is 17.8 while the mean rank for the nine states with the highest income tax rates is 25.7.

Overall, the evidence does not prove, but does suggest, that income tax rates do matter for economic growth. Of course, a host of other factors matter as well. In order to assess the role of income tax rates on growth, the ideal test would involve holding everything else constant. In other words, you would want to examine a parallel version of New Jersey, for example, but one with a lower income tax rate. Holding everything else constant, economic theory suggests that New Jersey would grow faster.

The broader message is that lots of factors that influence a state’s economic growth rate. Each state is an experiment in which tax rates, school quality, and various government services are provided endogenously by state policymakers. The bundle of policies and regulations is too large and complicated for us to identify how each one matters. And on top of the political attributes, there are the things that lie underground, or on the ground itself (or the ocean front—or lack thereof), that people living in each state can consume. All policymakers can do is to try and manage the factors they can influence in a way that will help their state grow faster.

In case you are wondering, Kansas ranked as the 29th-fastest-growing state over this period. So, why can’t Missouri grow at least as fast as its neighbor? It’s a frustrating question, because we have a Gordian knot of regulations, laws, and policies that make it difficult to determine specific causes of our stagnation. Not only have policymakers failed to move Missouri in the right direction in the 21st century, but the complexity of our state’s problems prevents us from understanding why various initiatives have failed to produce their intended results. In my view, it seems like a good time for Missouri to review its entire spectrum of policies. For instance, we have not had a constitutional convention in this state since 1947. Maybe it is time for an institutional overhaul.

The post It Could Be Worse. Not Much Worse, but It Could Be Worse. appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The irony is that a straightforward reading of the Takings Clause should actually protect individual employees from having their paychecks bitten into without consent. These lawsuits use the reverse argument—requiring the Court to believe that the paychecks of employees are fundamentally union property to begin with, and that nonunion employees are “taking” money away from them by withholding their support.

In the past the Supreme Court has found that "unions have no constitutional entitlement to the fees of non-member employees," so the odds of success in these lawsuits do not appear high. But even if the law wasn't in favor of the rights of individual workers, the idea that unions have a constitutional right to the paychecks of laborers who reject them seems not only undemocratic but also, frankly, immoral.

Workers – whether union members and not – deserve better than that.

The post Unions’ Orwellian “Takings Clause” Argument appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Far from it. Of the 77 U.S. cities that KPMG ranked (which was not exhaustive of all major metros), Saint Louis ranked 45th and Kansas City ranked 46th. Among the cities cheaper than Saint Louis (and Kansas City) are regional competitors like Nashville, Omaha, Cincinnati, Memphis, Indianapolis, Cleveland, and Oklahoma City, to name a few. Worse yet, Saint Louis was more expensive than all 18 Southeastern cities KPMG looked at, from Atlanta to New Orleans.

So where did the Post-Dispatch get a top ten ranking for Saint Louis? If we only consider regions with populations greater than two million (of which KPMG ranked 31), Saint Louis is the 9th cheapest. I will leave it to the readers of this blog to decide if Saint Louis should pat itself on back for being cheaper than New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, when it has higher costs for businesses than Nashville, Memphis, and just about every other regional competitor. But if we do decide to use population as criteria, it seems more justified to look at metros with populations similar to those of Saint Louis and Kansas City (between two and three million residents). When we do that, Saint Louis is 7th and Kansas City is 8th out of 14 such cities. That seems awfully middling.

That’s probably why, if one reads the study that the Post-Dispatch reports on, they’ll find that it does not claim that Saint Louis is among the most competitive cities in the country. KPMG didn’t even break down cities by population in the study, choosing instead to do so by region.  The Post-Dispatch story (while citing the study) is actually based on an ancillary KPMG press release, which lauds Cincinnati, and is careful to note context.

Titling an article “St. Louis among most cost-competitive cities for business, report says” when the report in question says no such thing is a questionable decision for a newspaper of record. But this is not just a problem with the headline. The article itself is equally misleading, and it was not a headline writer who placed this story front and center on the Post-Dispatch’s website less than a week before a vote on multiple tax issues (where the city’s business climate is an issue). 

The post Report: Saint Louis, Kansas City *Not* Among Most Cost-Friendly Cities for Business appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What the proposal did not do under the authorizing legislation in Jefferson City is exempt the new sales tax dollars from Tax Increment Financing (TIF). Because they did not exempt the Arch tax from TIF, a large portion of the revenues are likely to be diverted to the 176 (at least) TIF districts around Saint Louis City and County.

You may think you are voting to support the Arch and parks. However, a significant sum of the new sales taxes people pay will go to the many ludicrous subsidies implemented under TIF in recent decades. Many of the retail shopping districts in our area will now be able to keep half of the new Arch tax for themselves. You read that right. Existing TIFs will be able to “capture” half of the new Arch taxes generated within the TIF district and use it for private purposes. In other words, much of the revenue may not go to the parks . . . or the Arch . . . but to developers, municipal investors, and private retailers.

It was not a simple oversight allowing TIFs to capture the Arch sales taxes. Just a few years ago, the legislation authorizing a sales tax increase for MetroLink specifically exempted the tax from TIF. What is worse, in the very same legislation that authorized the new Arch tax (2012 HB 1504), the Missouri Legislature also authorized a new parks sales tax in Jackson County (Kansas City). Would you believe that they exempted the new Jackson County sales tax from TIF capture, but allowed the Arch tax to be taken by private developers within any TIF in the area? No, it was not an oversight. It was a choice, and voters deserve to know about that choice.

The second objection — as a quite separate matter — is another question that must be raised: Why are city and county residents being asked to support a federal monument — the Gateway Arch — with local tax revenue?

We do not hear of the residents of cities and towns in Wyoming, Montana, or Idaho being asked to support Yellowstone National Park with local sales taxes. Why should Saint Louis residents be asked to provide such support for the Arch?

Officials at the National Park Service have acknowledged that they do not know of any similar situation in which a local tax has been used to improve a national park or monument.

All in all, the Arch tax is a terrible idea on several counts. It deserves a resounding “no.”

Andrew B. Wilson is a resident fellow and senior writer and James A. Bosnick III is a policy extern at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Two Thumbs Down on the So-Called ‘Arch Tax’ appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Currently, a bipartisan group of more than 20 state attorneys general and elected officials are asking a judge in Florida to invalidate the federal health care reform law. Missourians should encourage their attorney general, Chris Koster, to join this multistate lawsuit, which resumes on Jan. 10. In my view, the precedent that Missourians set by approving Proposition C could be continued if Attorney General Chris Koster joined the lawsuit.

The following are some facts related to the lawsuit:

• Twenty attorneys general are challenging the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the health care reform law that Congress passed earlier this year, in a courtroom in Pensacola, Fla. They are arguing that the law is unconstitutional and would set a dangerous precedent.
• The case involves two arguments. The first is that the requirement for all Americans to purchase insurance is unconstitutional. The second is that expanding the eligibility requirements for Medicaid, the joint federal-state health insurance program for the poor, threatens state sovereignty and will burden state budgets.
• The states party to the suit are Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, South Dakota, Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and Alaska. Additional states, such as Wisconsin, are considering joining.
• Americans are divided in their support for the health care legislation. Only 42 percent of Americans say they have a generally favorable view of the law, while 41 percent say the opposite, according to a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation in December 2010.

Missouri voters were the first to oppose this attempt by the federal government to take control over health care. As Missourians, we live in a democracy. We should have a government that represents the demonstrated wishes of Missourians in this matter, thereby advancing liberty with responsibility by promoting market solutions for health care policy.

I will discuss the effort to encourage Attorney General Koster to join the Florida lawsuit on the Mike Ferguson show on the Eagle 93.9 FM tomorrow, Jan. 6 at 5:00 p.m in Columbia. I encourage our readers to tune in or listen online.

The post Attorney General Chris Koster Should Join the Multistate Health Care Lawsuit in Florida appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Every dime that the state takes away from an individual or business, through an income tax, is essentially taken out of the productive economy. Consequently, the capital that would have been spent investing in future goods is no longer available to the entity that would have otherwise used it. This, in effect, stifles growth.

Some might argue that public spending pumps that money back into the economy, but the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is a perfect example of that kind of Keynesian theory failing in practice. The bill massively increased government spending,but did little to stimulate growth in the economy; unemployment remains around 10 percent. In practice, government spending provides much less of a stimulative effect than comparable tax cuts.

It would be in Missouri’s best interest to lower — or even abolish — the state income tax, thus enabling Missourians to spend and invest more of their own money to grow our stagnant economy. As demonstrated in the table below, which displays average annual growth rates per state between 1997 and 2008, Missouri’s growth ranks seventh-worst in the nation. Abolishing or reducing the state income tax would be a step in the right direction toward positive change.

Source for GDP Numbers: Bureau of Economic Analysis

The post Growth by State appeared first on Show-Me Institute.